Case Number: ADJ-00030225. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00030225
• Hearing Date: 14 March 2022
• Date: 01 March 2022
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

At the hearing the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text.

The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in.

Background:

The Complainant has submitted a number of complaints against the Respondent under various statutes. The Respondent contends that the Complainant has named the incorrect respondent in his WRC complaint referral form and that most of the Complainant’s complaints are out of time.

Preliminary Issue: Incorrect Respondent

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submits that the Complainant has named the incorrect respondent in his complaint referral form. The Respondent submits that the Complainant commenced employment with Arvato Finance Limited on 27 August 2012. In or around February 2019, the Bertelsmann and Saham Groups merged creating a new legal entity, Majorel Ireland Limited. As and from February 2019, the Complainant ceased to be employed by Arvato Finance Limited and was employed by Majorel Ireland Limited. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was on express notice of the change of his employer and that there was no ambiguity as to the identity of the Complainant’s employer. The Respondent submits that the Complainant received a letter dated 14 February 2020 from Human Resources relating to a redeployment and within that letter the identity of his employer was clearly stated: “We would like to wish you continued success in your career with Majorel Ireland Limited.” The Respondent further submits that it is clear from the following extract from the Complainant’s resignation letter of 3 March 2020 that he was aware of the identity of his employer: “For that, I will ask you to please accept this email as my formal resignation to the T&S role with Majorel. My last enrolled day with Majorel would be March 31 st, four weeks from now.” The Respondent submits that Majorel Ireland Limited was the Complainant’s employer at the relevant time and that the Complainant has named the incorrect respondent on his complaint referral form. The Respondent contends, therefore, that the WRC lacks jurisdiction to investigate complaints against Arvato Financial Services Limited, the employer named on the complaint referral form. The Respondent cites the following precedents in support of its position: the High Court judgment in O’Higgins v UCD and the Labour Court [2013] IEHC 431 and the Labour Court determination in Travelodge Management Limited v Sylwia Wach EDA1511.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submits that he was unfamiliar with the WRC adjudication process and that he named Averto Finance Services Limited as his employer as that is the employer named on his contract of employment. At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he was aware that his employer had changed to Majorel in February 2019.

Findings and Conclusions:

...